linux-kernel - Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86 and powerpc v3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200903144037.GA17821@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:40:37 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, x86@...nel.org,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: remove the last set_fs() in common code, and remove it for x86
 and powerpc v3

On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 03:36:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, vfs.git#for-next is always a merge of independent branches; I don't
> put stuff directly into #for-next - too easy to lose that way.
> 
> IOW, that would be something like #base.set_fs, included into #for-next
> merge set.  And I've no problem with never-rebased branches...
> 
> Where in the mainline are the most recent prereqs of this series?

I can't think of anything past -rc1, but I haven't actually checked.